October Term 2012 · Docket 12-307

Can the House defend a law when the President opposes it?

The dispute centers on whether the House of Representatives has standing to defend a federal statute when the executive branch agrees with the plaintiff that the law is unconstitutional.

Official caption
United States v. Windsor
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Jackson argued the United States does not ask the Court to redress its asserted injuries.

    Ms. Jackson stated the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group asserts no judicially cognizable injury.

    Mr. Clement argued the House is the proper party to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

    Mr. Clement cited precedent holding the House defends laws when the executive agrees with the plaintiff.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the constitutional limits of legislative power. The core conflict involves the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Court must determine who holds the authority to defend federal laws in court.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 27, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The United States wants the Court to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

The House of Representatives wants the Court to affirm the lower court's rejection of the law.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The United States argues the House lacks a judicially cognizable injury to defend the statute.

The House argues it is the proper party to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked about the jurisdictional basis for the Court's review.

Justice Breyer asked why a fiduciary would have standing to act under the law despite believing it unconstitutional.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the constitutional role of the legislative branch in defending federal statutes. It clarifies the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The outcome shapes the ability of Congress to protect its laws from judicial review.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON